Illinois Compiled Statutes

720 ILCS 550/9 (2026)

(a) Any person who engages in a calculated criminal cannabis conspiracy, as defined in subsection (b), is guilty of a Class 3 felony, and fined not more than $200,000 and shall be subject to the forfeitures prescribed in subsection (c); except that, if any person engages in such offense after one or more prior convictions under this Section, Section 4(d), Section 5(d), Section 8(d) or any law of the United States or of any state relating to cannabis, or controlled substances as defined in the Illinois Controlled Substances Act, in addition to the fine and forfeiture authorized above, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 felony

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(720 ILCS 550/9) (from Ch. 56 1/2, par. 709)
    Sec. 9. (a) Any person who engages in a calculated criminal cannabis conspiracy, as defined in subsection (b), is guilty of a Class 3 felony, and fined not more than $200,000 and shall be subject to the forfeitures prescribed in subsection (c); except that, if any person engages in such offense after one or more prior convictions under this Section, Section 4(d), Section 5(d), Section 8(d) or any law of the United States or of any state relating to cannabis, or controlled substances as defined in the Illinois Controlled Substances Act, in addition to the fine and forfeiture authorized above, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 felony.
    (b) For purposes of this Section, a person engages in a calculated criminal cannabis conspiracy when:
        (1) he violates Section 4(d), 4(e), 5(d), 5(e), 8(c)
    
or 8(d) of this Act; and
        (2) such violation is a part of a conspiracy
    
undertaken or carried on with 2 or more other persons; and
        (3) he obtains anything of value greater than $500
    
from, or organizes, directs or finances such violation or conspiracy.
    (c) Any person who is convicted under this Section of engaging in a calculated criminal cannabis conspiracy shall forfeit to the State of Illinois:
        (1) the receipts obtained by him in such conspiracy;
    
and
        (2) any of his interests in, claims against, receipts
    
from, or property or rights of any kind affording a source of influence over, such conspiracy.
    (d) The circuit court may enter such injunctions, restraining orders, directions, or prohibitions, or take such other actions, including the acceptance of satisfactory performance bonds, in connection with any property, claim, receipt, right or other interest subject to forfeiture under this Section, as it deems proper.
(Source: P.A. 103-51, eff. 1-1-24.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1993–2009 · leading case: People v. Hughes, 767 N.E.2d 958 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002).
People v. Hughes, 767 N.E.2d 958 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “Laws at 3498-502))), calculated criminal cannabis conspiracy (720 ILCS 550/9(b) (West 1998)), unlawful delivery of cannabis (720 ILCS 550/5(d) (West 1998)), and unlawful possession of cannabis (720 ILCS 550/4(d) (West 1998)) for his role in an April 3, 1999, incident.”
People v. Snyder, 904 N.E.2d 625 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 2× “Snyder, was convicted of unlawful possession of cannabis with intent to deliver (720 ILCS 550/5(e) (West 2004)), unlawful possession of cannabis (720 ILCS 550/4(e) (West 2004)), and unlawful calculated criminal cannabis conspiracy (720 ILCS 550/9(a) (West 2004)). The trial court…”
People v. Weilmuenster, 670 N.E.2d 802 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996). “Defendant was charged with one count of calculated criminal cannabis conspiracy (720 ILCS 550/9(b) (West 1992)) and three counts of cannabis trafficking (720 ILCS 550/5.”
People v. Robinson, 614 N.E.2d 531 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993). · cites it 2× “He first argues that his conspiracy conviction should be reversed because he was charged with conspiracy to deliver a substance containing cannabis under the general conspiracy statute (720 ILCS 5/8 — 2 (West 1992)) rather than under the conspiracy provision of the Cannabis…”
People v. Hughes (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “Laws at 3498-502) )), calculated criminal cannabis conspiracy (720 ILCS 550/9(b) (West 1998)), unlawful delivery of cannabis (720 ILCS 550/5(d) (West 1998)), and unlawful possession of cannabis (720 ILCS 550/4(d) (West 1998)) for his role in an April 3, 1999, incident.”
— 720 ILCS 550/9(a) — 1 case
People v. Snyder, 904 N.E.2d 625 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “Snyder, was convicted of unlawful possession of cannabis with intent to deliver (720 ILCS 550/5(e) (West 2004)), unlawful possession of cannabis (720 ILCS 550/4(e) (West 2004)), and unlawful calculated criminal cannabis conspiracy (720 ILCS 550/9(a) (West 2004)). The trial court…”
— 720 ILCS 550/9(b) — 4 cases
People v. Hughes, 767 N.E.2d 958 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “Laws at 3498-502))), calculated criminal cannabis conspiracy (720 ILCS 550/9(b) (West 1998)), unlawful delivery of cannabis (720 ILCS 550/5(d) (West 1998)), and unlawful possession of cannabis (720 ILCS 550/4(d) (West 1998)) for his role in an April 3, 1999, incident.”
People v. Weilmuenster, 670 N.E.2d 802 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996). “Defendant was charged with one count of calculated criminal cannabis conspiracy (720 ILCS 550/9(b) (West 1992)) and three counts of cannabis trafficking (720 ILCS 550/5.”
People v. Hughes (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “Laws at 3498-502) )), calculated criminal cannabis conspiracy (720 ILCS 550/9(b) (West 1998)), unlawful delivery of cannabis (720 ILCS 550/5(d) (West 1998)), and unlawful possession of cannabis (720 ILCS 550/4(d) (West 1998)) for his role in an April 3, 1999, incident.”
People v. Robinson, 614 N.E.2d 531 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993). “He first argues that his conspiracy conviction should be reversed because he was charged with conspiracy to deliver a substance containing cannabis under the general conspiracy statute (720 ILCS 5/8 — 2 (West 1992)) rather than under the conspiracy provision of the Cannabis…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.